State Rep. Julie Emerson (R-Carencro) speaks at an Americans for Prosperity – Louisiana function in Lafayette on Wednesday, March 19, 2025 during which she addressed “rumors” that Constitutional Amendment Two (2) on the March 29, 2025 ballot entails taxation of church-owned property, a claim Emerson emphatically denies.
When we published this feature entailing our “full-throttled support” for Gov. Landry’s Constitutional Amendment Two (2), we briefly addressed in the video concerns from some members of the church community. Those concerns have centered around any potential taxation of church-owned property.
On Wednesday, March 19, 2025, we were invited to an Americans for Prosperity – Louisiana evening dinner featuring four Louisiana State Representatives to discuss Gov. Landry’s proposed Constitutional Amendment Two (2).
At that dinner engagement, Rep. Julie Emerson (R-Carencro), authoritatively shot down “rumors” that the Amendment would result in taxation of church-owned property.
This blog is video-based, and there’s no way we can adequately replicate in writing what Rep. Emerson said, so let’s present the segment of her presentation pertaining to the “rumors” concerning any church-owned property being subject to taxation, with her conceding that those rumors have been, “particularly challenging to me personally because of the way I was raised.” Here’s that video segment:
03/19/25: Rep. Emerson addresses “rumors” of church property taxation entailing Constitutional Amendment Two (2).
We will also point out that, on Thursday, March 13, 2025, Emerson authored this Op-ed in The Center Square. From that Op-ed:
By now, you’ve likely seen claims that Amendment 2 (on your March 29 ballot) will somehow place property taxes on our churches. This just could not be further from the truth. Amendment 2 does not place any taxes on properties that are currently enjoying exemptions … and certainly not churches.
As it was making its way through the process, we were contacted by a few leaders of church organizations about concerns of placing those property tax exemptions in the tax code instead of the Constitution. I agreed that religious freedoms enjoyed special status and added specific language to the Constitution that I believe protects our churches and moved the language for all other nonprofits to the tax code, requiring a supermajority vote in both chambers of the legislature to change the statute (HB11, now Act 12) plus governor’s signature – and everyone, included church leaders who contacted us, seemed pleased.
Suddenly, a lawsuit was filed by a lawyer from New Orleans. I’ve never met him. It seems he’s probably a very intelligent attorney – graduating from Harvard, then the University of California at Berkeley Law School. I think it is important to point out that many of his associations seem to be what most would consider more on the liberal side.
I sincerely hope this lawsuit wasn’t just an attempt to stymie a Republican governor and legislature trying to enact positive reforms.
But genuine questions from some of our pastors and ministry leaders popped up as well.
So, allow me to share how some of our fellow conservative states handle church exemptions:
- Alabama: constitutional protection for properties exclusively used for worship
- Arkansas: constitutional protection for churches used as such (so as a church)
- Florida: no constitutional exemption, a constitutional “allowance” for the legislature to enact in the tax code
- Georgia: no constitutional exemption, the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to repeal a religious property exemption in the tax code
- Kentucky: constitutional protection for property owned by institutions of religion
- Mississippi: no constitutional exemption, provided for in tax code
- Tennessee: no constitutional exemption, a constitutional “allowance” for the legislature to enact in the tax code
- Texas: no constitutional exemption, a constitutional “allowance” for the legislature to enact in the tax code
Importantly, churches have not faced an onslaught of tax assessments in these states, and there is absolutely no desire to see that happen in Louisiana either.
On a personal level, let me state unequivocally that I would never do anything to hurt our churches, because my faith life is important to me. I am a long time member of First Baptist Church in Lafayette, a board member of a Baptist seminary, and have a mother who has been in Christian education my entire life.
Rep. Emerson also explained the rationale for why the $2,000/year teacher pay raise (along with $1,000/year raise for support workers) was included in the Constitutional Amendment.
Again, she gave a fantastic explanation, and we would draw particular focus to her statements about incurring high-interest-rate debt to sit on low-earning assets.
With Sound Off Louisiana’s founder, Robert Burns, being an LSU Finance Major (albeit from 1985) and an inactive CPA, that type of financial (mis)management is appalling!
Let’s watch Emerson explain how passing this amendment will result in the State’s resources being much more efficiently managed and, in the process, provide for the teacher (and support worker) permanent pay raise:
3/19/25: Emerson indicates how daunting the task for Constitutional Amendment Two (2) has been and why the teacher (and support worker) pay raise was provided as part of that Amendment.
Finally, Emerson touted the increase in the Standard Deduction from $12,500 to $25,000 for Louisiana’s senior citizens:
3/19/25: Emerson touts Constitutional Amendment Two (2) raising the Standard Deduction for senior citizens from $12,500 to $25,000.
Remember, the election is one week from today on March 29, 2025 and, just for the record again, we reiterate our full-throttled support for Amendment # Two (2).
Why not have a chance to vote on each topic without lumping all. Measures together to get us to vote bad with good?
Because the politicians who set this up are underhanded like our clownfish guvnah.
Sad what this has come to. Disappointing in a word is this administration.
Mr. Derouen:
Thank you for your question even though you obviously posed it as a lead in for you to avail yourself of an opportunity to lambast Gov. Landry (which is perfectly acceptable).
I really do wish that folk would pay more attention to the videos I publish with my posts because, if they did, they would see answers to questions such as yours provided by nonpartisan, independent sources.
To that end, I would direct your attention to the 24:28 – 25:34 segment of the following video entailing Steven Procopio (PAR President) responding to the EXACT question you posed (only it was posed by a reporter):
https://youtu.be/jIfroKfGELQ?si=uT6whhyRrDk8qhFW
I once had a Finance professor at LSU by the name of Dr. Willie Staats, who went on to be with the Lord a little over five (5) years ago:
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/theadvocate/name/william-staats-obituary?id=9551524
Every semester (I took several classes for which he served as the Professor), he would complain that LSU students had to be “spoon fed” the course material rather than exerting the energy required to learn the material.
I can’t help but be reminded of his words as I read your question. Nevertheless, I appreciate you posing it even if I think your own response to your own question is devoid of the facts of the matter.
If voters voted “yes” on the teacher pay raise (the presumed “good” everyone talks about) but “no” on the liquidation of the two funds that fund that raise through massive interest savings (the presumed “bad” even though nobody will formally say that’s the “bad” nor explain how it is prudent from a financial management standpoint to flush a massive amount of money right down the toilet by incurring FAR more interest on the Unfunded Accrued Liability associated with the teacher retirement system than is earned in funds in those accounts), then what happens if the raises are approved, but there’s no funding mechanism to provide the money to pay the raise because that separate Amendment failed under the scenario you say you want?
Hence, let me pose a question of you: How would you propose paying for that teacher (and support worker) pay raise under the scenario I just outlined because it is not an insignificant amount of money and, furthermore, while the raise is already budgeted for in the next fiscal year (’26), if this Amendment fails, that $2,000/year stipend to which teachers have become accustomed to (and the $1,000/year support worker stipend) is almost certain to go away as FY ’27 takes center stage.
Again, thank you for your comment, and I invite you to pose an answer to question posed to you.